purpose of establishing standard (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

purpose of establishing standard in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1922–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Burrill v. Nair CA3green
calctapp · 2013 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2017
2 sentences

2017An important reason for this position has been to prevent implementation of a scheme to file a complaint for the purpose of establishing a privilege to publicize its content and then dropping the action.’ ” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 397 , quoting Rest.2d Torts, § 611, com. e, p. 300.)9 Here, plaintiffs rely on this quote in Burrill to support their argument that there must be some judicial action on a complaint before a report about the complaint is privileged.

2016An important reason for this position has been to prevent implementation of a scheme to file a complaint for the purpose of establishing a privilege to publicize its content and then dropping the action.’ ” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 397 , quoting Rest.2d Torts, § 611, com. e, p. 300.) 9 Here, plaintiffs rely on this quote in Burrill to support their argument that there must be some judicial action on a complaint before a report about the complaint is privileged.

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Sinz v. Owens green
cal · 1949
2 sentences

1974Haas, supra, 45 Cal.2d 811, 833 .) In Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749 [ 205 P.2d 3 , 8 A.L.R.2d 757 ], the plaintiff sustained a double comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of his left leg as a result of a traffic accident and was treated by a Lodi physician; the defendant-doctor took X-rays; the first X-ray showed good bone alignment so defendant applied a plaster cast; subsequent X-rays revealed an increasing angulation of bone in the upper and lower fractures; plaintiff called a Stockton physician (Stockton and Lodi are adjoining communities) for the purpose of establishing the standard

1974Haas, supra, 45 Cal.2d 811, 833 .) In Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749 [ 205 P.2d 3 , 8 A.L.R.2d 757 ], the plaintiff sustained a double comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of his left leg as a result of a traffic accident and was treated by a Lodi physician; the defendant-doctor took X-rays; the first X-ray showed good bone alignment so defendant applied a plaster cast; subsequent X-rays revealed an increasing angulation of bone in the upper and lower fractures; plaintiff called a Stockton physician (Stockton and Lodi are adjoining communities) for the purpose of establishing the standard

11974–1974
Seneris v. Haas green
cal · 1955
1 sentence

1974Haas, supra, 45 Cal.2d 811, 833 .) In Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749 [ 205 P.2d 3 , 8 A.L.R.2d 757 ], the plaintiff sustained a double comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of his left leg as a result of a traffic accident and was treated by a Lodi physician; the defendant-doctor took X-rays; the first X-ray showed good bone alignment so defendant applied a plaster cast; subsequent X-rays revealed an increasing angulation of bone in the upper and lower fractures; plaintiff called a Stockton physician (Stockton and Lodi are adjoining communities) for the purpose of establishing the standard

11974–1974
People v. Smith green
cal · 1922
1 sentence

1922The case of People v. Smith, 63 Cal. Dec. 637 [ 207 Pac. 518 ], is cited as holding that such an instruction is erroneous.

11922–1922

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Civil Code § 47 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

MI 8 (1892–2021) TX 8 (1896–2015) NY 7 (1850–2016) GA 6 (1924–2018) IL 5 (1896–2024) CA 5 (1922–2017) IN 5 (1998–2014) OH 4 (1982–2007) AZ 3 (1985–2021) NE 3 (1897–1931) VA 3 (1990–2016) MA 2 (1995–2009) SD 2 (1912–1981) OK 2 (1857–1925) MD 2 (1996–2005) OR 2 (1944–1993)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check